(no title)
openthc | 1 year ago
Folk ask themselves, why contribute to this thing (MIT/GPL licenses) if there some for-profit entity involved?
Folk can't take us at face-value (I'd argue demonstrated value) and level (unfounded) accusations at us; because some other player did things "dirty".
Well, other folk wanted to pay for support/customisation and in USA you make a for-profit entity to do that. So the corporate part of the open-source project is, nearly, a requirement.
weinzierl|1 year ago
You put MIT or GPL in the same bucket here, but really shouldn't because the difference is all that matters.
There is no "rug-pull" as you call it. What happened with Redis is what the BSD license allows and what people should expect to happen.
The combination of GPL (or AGPL) with a large enough and diverse set of contributors who keep their rights in their contributions is a proven way to prevent what happened with Redis.
It is our decision as publishers of open-source projects which way we want to go. It is our decision as contributors which open-source projects we support.
Both ways are fine, but blaming others that you regret your decision is not.
homebrewer|1 year ago
Also the lack of a CLA (and/or copyright assignment) because many "modern" projects under the GPL ask you to waive your rights away, thus nullifying the license. Do not contribute to them if you have any self-respect.
https://drewdevault.com/2021/04/12/DCO.html
hellcow|1 year ago
liveoneggs|1 year ago
Osiris|1 year ago
I have no interest in engaging with that product just to have a new pricing model thrown my way and disrupt everything.
ozgrakkurt|1 year ago
Nemo_bis|1 year ago
There are some practical suggestions at https://reuse.software/tutorial/
matsemann|1 year ago